Slashdot Mirror

BTW, what part of a Warm Earth makes this "not a nice planet to live on". More plant life, more arable land, basically the current tropics as year-round weather everywhere. Seems quite nice to me.

One of the predicted outcomes of the global warming are non-survivable areas. Right now a healthy human with access to shade and sufficient water can survive natural heat anywhere on the Earth. If the climate warms some more, there'll be regions where humans can't phsyicaly survive without air conditioning.

The predicted locations will be in India and Asia - the opposite of what you'd call "Western countries". See: https://insideclimatenews.org/... or http://climateguide.nl/2018/12...

Oh, and Texas is predicted to be affected too.

This article says the opposite, https://insideclimatenews.org/... with China slightly lowering its emissions over the last 4 years while America is back to increasing them.
Unluckily it is really hard to find good info,as this article makes different claims, https://www.carbonbrief.org/an...
Still, why don't you just say the rest of the world outputs more carbon then the relatively small USA so everyone else has to stop why we continue to burn shit like crazy

We have controlled the weather for 100+ years We made it warmer because we're paying for the nicer weather it causes.

When you dump iron rust into the oceans (already doing it), it creates Giant Toxic Algae Blooms, which "Climate Scientists" say, "It's proof of Climate Change"! We can stop the algae blooms by ending the "geoengineering" pork spending to the iron oar industry. We can stop the climate from being wamer by puming less steam into the air. The previous YT vid shows tons of H20 (steam) being used to create cloud cover and boost storm cells, etc. weather modifications also warm the climate since H20 is the #1 greenhouse gas, according to NASA -- But idiots worry about CO2 (plant food) because they're ignorant and blindly believe anyone with a lab coat on who's shouting scaremongering End of Days taxation schemes. Hello, McFly, we're pumping trillions of tons of HOT WATER VAPOR into the air for 100+ years using wet surface air coolers. There's your "warming". Do weather mods long enough, it's called "climate change" (which is just a cover for geoengineering).

Global Warming Means More Insects Threatening Food Crops â" A Lot More, Study Warns

https://insideclimatenews.org/...

One wonders who to believe...

The methane from the cows & the manure never caused me any harm.

There isn't enough evidence to support your claim.

Here are the pollutants that Actually damage human lungs and deserve the label "dangerous"

I see, an air pollutant is only dangerous if it causes damage targeting your lungs. If it causes you to die by means of natural disaster, it is perfectly safe.

Are you sure that methane didn't do something to you?

i.e. rplacing fossil fools with fossil farts.

If it were literally only fossil farts, that would be great, because CO2 is a lesser GHG than methane. However, since we passed peak non-fracked NG ages ago, that's not actually the situation at all. We're selling out the future for cheaper, cleaner energy today.

Nuclear energy is not safe and is not inexpensive when humans are involved.

It's safe...
https://ourworldindata.org/wha...
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/...

It's inexpensive...
https://www.eia.gov/electricit...
https://insideclimatenews.org/...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/j...

Decommissioning costs are running two orders of magnitude more expensive than proponents said they would be.
* This means that nuclear is actually much more expensive than it's stated cost and that means the next generatiosn subsidizes nuclear power used by the prior generations.

That's just a lie. The Forbes article above explicitly point out that decommissioning costs are included in the price. They also point out that past cost overruns in nuclear power were often the result of poor money management, not any flaws in the technology or construction.

Securing the nuclear waste costs millions of dollars per site per year for the foreseeable future.
* This cost increases over time. What cost $6 million 10 years ago, costs $8 million a couple years ago.

Prove it.

Private insurance will not cover the risk. That's evidence right there that the risks are unknowable or larger than proponents say.
* This means citizens are on the hook for unlimited losses. Corporations and executives get the profits up front and dump the costs on citizens.

The risks are large. That's what happens with any large project. A multi-billion dollar anything will be more than any private insurance company is willing or able to cover. This is a financial risk, which again is often a problem of poor money management and not any flaw with nuclear power itself.

It has benefits for CO2 but we sail thru the 2 degree celcius increase about 2024. Nuclear plants wouldn't be done for 20 years.

Mean construction time for a nuclear power plant is about 7.5 years, though many have been completed in 3 years. Just because the TVA took 42 years to complete a reactor at Watts Barr does not mean all reactor projects are doomed to take as long.

The public hate them.

That's changing.
https://www.statista.com/stati...
https://www.thedailystar.net/o...

I've seen people flip on their stance on nuclear power right before my eyes when I point out that Fukushima was older than Chernobyl. We don't build nuclear reactors like Fukushima and Chernobyl any more. People understand this. You can complain about nuclear being unsafe, too expensive, and so on, but that's technology from 1980 if you are lucky. I can make wind and solar look bad too if I'm taking state of the art from 1978 and compare that to modern nuclear. Should I base my car purchases from what I learned by reading Unsafe At Any Speed?

I could see using Nuclear only in extreme lattitudes where alternative energy is less practical.

Then you need your vision checked.

On a more serious note though; for this to be comparable to tobacco the oil companies would have had to know BEFORE the public how harmful oil was- and actively try suppressing the truth. As far as I am aware- oil companies didn't find out before the public- and the public continued to use oil after learning of the dangers.

That's because you are willfully ignorant. You don't want to know the truth. It's just a google search away, but you didn't ask because you didn't want to know. Well, I'm telling you anyway. Do people working for corporations really sell out our future for a cheeseburger? People do.

Yes, in fact they were and they did, in the form of the American Petroleum Institute.

In a 1998 memo, they outlined their "action plan" for a campaign to cast doubt on climate science. Which they implemented pretty much as written.

(despite the fact that they had already-- in 1980-- identified climate warming due to carbon dioxide as a problem.)

(news article here.)

Did you read the nefarious plan? Here's what the plan lists as "Victory will be achieved when":

-Average citizens "understand(recognize) uncertainties in climate science, recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the "conventional wisdom".
-Media "understands"(recognizes) uncertainties in climate science
-Media coverage reflects balance on climate science and recognition of the validity of viewpoints that challenge the current "conventional wisdom"
-Industry senior leadership understands uncertainties in climate science, making them stronger ambassadors to those who shape climate policy
-Those promoting the Kyoto treaty on the basis of extant science appear to be out of touch with reality

Climate models, not back in 1998, now 20 years later and more advanced still have error margins in the global energy imbalance that are GREATER than the actual imbalance driving climate change(that is directly from the IPCC so no dismissing this as fringe stuff). Given this, it would seem that recognising 'uncertainties' is not casting 'doubt' on climate science, but in stead correctly understanding. You seem to come from a world view that climate science is a binary math proof type of problem. It simply is not, our global climate is insanely complex, and knowing we produce CO2 and knowing that CO2 is warming the planet is compatible with also knowing we have large uncertainties around how much warming how much CO2 will end up causing, let alone the even greater uncertainties around what impact that uncertain warming will lead to as well.

Yes, in fact they were and they did, in the form of the American Petroleum Institute.

In a 1998 memo, they outlined their "action plan" for a campaign to cast doubt on climate science. Which they implemented pretty much as written.

(despite the fact that they had already-- in 1980-- identified climate warming due to carbon dioxide as a problem.)

(news article here.)

Did you read the nefarious plan? Here's what the plan lists as "Victory will be achieved when":

-Average citizens "understand(recognize) uncertainties in climate science, recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the "conventional wisdom".
-Media "understands"(recognizes) uncertainties in climate science
-Media coverage reflects balance on climate science and recognition of the validity of viewpoints that challenge the current "conventional wisdom"
-Industry senior leadership understands uncertainties in climate science, making them stronger ambassadors to those who shape climate policy
-Those promoting the Kyoto treaty on the basis of extant science appear to be out of touch with reality

Climate models, not back in 1998, now 20 years later and more advanced still have error margins in the global energy imbalance that are GREATER than the actual imbalance driving climate change(that is directly from the IPCC so no dismissing this as fringe stuff). Given this, it would seem that recognising 'uncertainties' is not casting 'doubt' on climate science, but in stead correctly understanding. You seem to come from a world view that climate science is a binary math proof type of problem. It simply is not, our global climate is insanely complex, and knowing we produce CO2 and knowing that CO2 is warming the planet is compatible with also knowing we have large uncertainties around how much warming how much CO2 will end up causing, let alone the even greater uncertainties around what impact that uncertain warming will lead to as well.

CO2, soot, lead... Yeah I hold the oil companies responsible. Not least because when it became clear what was happening they were extremely slow to do anything about it, just like tobacco sellers.

More importantly, just like the tobacco sellers, they both a) paid for scientific research into the secondary effects of their products which indicated that they did harm, and b) followed this up by claiming that their products didn't have harmful secondary effects (i.e. AGW.) e.g. ExxonMobil. They deliberately perpetrated fraud. If the tobacco companies are the standard (which seems reasonable) then they are precisely as guilty, and for all of the same reasons.

Your view of the world is 'interesting'. You think 'Big Oil' is a thing, like a group that holds meetings and makes decisions.

Yes, in fact they were and they did, in the form of the American Petroleum Institute.

In a 1998 memo, they outlined their "action plan" for a campaign to cast doubt on climate science. Which they implemented pretty much as written.

(despite the fact that they had already-- in 1980-- identified climate warming due to carbon dioxide as a problem.)

(news article here.)

Your view of the world is 'interesting'. You think 'Big Oil' is a thing, like a group that holds meetings and makes decisions.

Yes, in fact they were and they did, in the form of the American Petroleum Institute.

In a 1998 memo, they outlined their "action plan" for a campaign to cast doubt on climate science. Which they implemented pretty much as written.

(despite the fact that they had already-- in 1980-- identified climate warming due to carbon dioxide as a problem.)

(news article here.)

This is wrong. In fact, China's CO2 production has gone down https://insideclimatenews.org/news/28022017/chinas-co2-reduction-clean-energy-trump-us, and this is in part because they've managed to do exactly what you think would trigger a revolution, namely by reducing their coal burning amount http://www.wri.org/blog/2017/01/china%E2%80%99s-decline-coal-consumption-drives-global-slowdown-emissions.

Of course climate science is falsifiable.

Is it? Not according to this climate-scientist from Australia, nor according to this professor concurring with this blogger (both of them hilariously repeating in earnest this earlier satire).

It's those subtheories that you really need to falsify.

No, I don't. As I explained to you before, the burden of proof is not on me, but on those, who want to compel me — on pain of higher taxes, loss of freedoms, and even actual criminal prosecutions — to change my way of life.

"We can't even keep pressurized OIL pipelines from leaking. How the hell do you VACUUM pressurize (way harder because air has no viscosity compared to thick oil) MILES of much ... We can't even keep our car tires from rupturing."

A hard vacuum is on the order of 15 PSI/100 kPa - atmospheric pressure). Tires usually have at least twice that, and are also exposed to mechanical shock and other hazards during normal operation. Oil pipelines can operate at hundreds of PSI ("708 psig is considered "moderate" for oil transmission lines. Some pipelines can run at slightly above 1400 psig...")

There is no real comparison between that and maintaining a vacuum.

"super-high-speed machines, in a pure vacuum" Oh, you're just ignorant of the technology. Hyperloop will operate at very low pressures, not in a hard vacuum - it's part of the design, since the trains will be supported by air bearings.

But, who in their right mind would replace a horse and buggy with a mechanical machine which is propelled by explosions and can go so fast that it will suck the air out of people's lungs?

It seems like you don't want to listen to any facts. Calling them "fake news" may make you feel better but doesn't change them.
Since you're too lazy to use Google here are some more references:
https://insideclimatenews.org/...
https://theintercept.com/2017/...
http://time.com/4709796/trump-...
https://thinkprogress.org/trum...

Actually the hotter ambient temperatures do derate any steam turbine generator, and it can be significant. Also, a lot of water is needed for nuclear generation, which is why the units are typically sited on bodies of water.

The companies (and their CEOs) are indeed buying back their stock:

The current report also found fault with share repurchases, a controversial practice of public companies buying back shares of their own stock. Critics say this artificially inflates a company's share price. In 2014, 23 of the top 30 fossil fuel companies spent a combined $38.5 billion repurchasing shares, a figure six times larger than the $6.6 billion all corporations spent that year on research into renewable energy, according to the report.

https://insideclimatenews.org/...

The divesting institutions also repress the stock price by not buying any more or back in... leaving a smaller demand for the stock.

Who said he received death threats? He did.

And many others. https://www.theguardian.com/sc...

but also https://insideclimatenews.org/...

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2012/01/mit-climate-scientists-wife-threatened-frenzy-hate

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jun/06/australia-climate-scientists-death-threats

http://grist.org/news-2/here-are-some-of-the-death-threats-sent-to-a-climate-scientist/

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/116404/response/288373/attach/4/Appendix%20A%20Data%20file%20072.pdf

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1545134/Scientists-threatened-for-climate-denial.html

the real reason they don't decommission nuclear plants is there is no money to shut them down and clean up the mess.

Nuclear power plants are being shutdown all the time, and those projects are fully funded. You're spouting massive ignorance.

Here's a few more recent ones:
http://insideclimatenews.org/s...

That graphic is actually 2.5 years old... Several "at risk" plants have already decided upon shutdown. And more...

http://motherboard.vice.com/re...

"another 15 to 20 plants are at risk of a premature shutdown in the next decade due to economics."

http://www.ibtimes.com/exelon-...

Nuclear is some of the cleanest power we can produce in bulk,

Solar and wind are much cleaner.

With attribution comes liability. One party which had foreknowledge of the consequences of carbon pollution and attempted to hide it was Exxon. http://insideclimatenews.org/n... Their liability may extend to triple damages.

Exxon studied the science, found it to be persuasive, even raising rigs to adapt to sea level rise, but lied about the science to the public for years. http://insideclimatenews.org/c...

Before anyone decides to mod me down as a troll, consider that teh denialists still deny when even one of their stalwarts of denial - Exxon - has known for years that AGW was real, but decided on a tactic of "sowing doubt" http://insideclimatenews.org/n... while their own researcers concluded AGW was real.

Not being able to produce credible research to prove their denialism, they are left with a smaller and smaller set of cherrypicking data, character assassination, and the always popular "I looked out the window and its cold today - so much for global warming!"

So in moves remarkably similar to tobacco idustry lawyers managing to deny that there was proof that tobacco caused cancer when there was ample evidence in the 1800's, or creationists claiming that dinosaurs and humans romped merrily together - but nol earlier than 4004 b.c.e. - based on long discredited fossil tracks in places like http://www.talkorigins.org/faq... Paluxy, Texas - Indeed, Ken Hamm's Creationism museum has that as biblical proof of young earth creationism - the denialists are getting backed into a smaller and smaller corner, soon to be left only with fingers stuck in their ears, and chanting "Neener never never - I can't hear you!"

So if anyone has the disproving research I'd love to see it. If not, just mod me down to oblivion, and prove what I just wrote.

Existing plants are too expensive to run and are closing. http://insideclimatenews.org/s... Nuclear in not cheap at all.

The question is not who's right, the question is: do you respect the humanity of people who disagree with you on something you believe

When someone lies for their own gain, do you prosecute that as fraud, or excuse it as the "free market"?

Are you willing to compete in the marketplace of ideas to convince the non-believers?

It's not about opinions. It's about lies, and harm/profits coming from those lies.

The bods in white coats said: burning oil (etc) may be bad news and furthermore it may be bad if you don't change your business strategy in the light of that soon.

No, that's not what they said (even if the article leads you to believe otherwise). Read the actual report that the article is based on. What the scientists actually said was that action on climate change was "premature" because of the "large scientific uncertainties" and the "severe impact of climate change policies on the world's economies".

http://insideclimatenews.org/s...

So, Exxon followed the advice of its scientists.

(In addition, little has changed in the intervening 30 years, so the conclusions are arguably still valid.)

Um, yeah that "premature" "uncertainty" language wasn't forced in by PHB post facto ... (A/C post 'cause I'm modding this story)

So it looks like scientists have been wrong about their global warming predictions going on four decades.

Except that their criteria for a 2-3 C increase hasn't passed yet. The IPCC apparently thinks the "first doubling of atmospheric CO2" will happen by about 2050. NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies thinks that global temps. have so far risen by 0.8 C since 1880. This means that the Exxon researcher's warning that "a doubling of CO2 levels in the atmosphere would increase average global temperatures by 2 to 3 degrees Celsius" could still come to pass. Several of the projections in the IPCC's figures suggest a 2C rise by ~2050 is possible, so they could still be proven right.

"Still might come to pass" in 2050 is far different than "5 to 10 years" from 1978. But keep moving the goal posts and you may eventually figure out a way to prove them right.

I can't find that purported prediction for "5 to 10 years" in either of the reports referenced. To the contrary, the reports very explicitly made no predictions for 5-10 years; it said that in that time period it would not be possible to distinguish the global warming signal from the statistical fluctuations. The only explicit numerical prediction in the 1978 Exxon report is on page 34 (the very last page, labeled "summary"). This stated "Doubling CO_2 could increase average global temperature by 1C to 3C by 2050 A.D. (10C predicted at poles)."

So I don't know what you mean about "moving the goalposts" on predictions. The goalpost in the 1978 prediction was "by 2050". This has not changed. The prediction in 1978 (based on the 1977 presentation) overlaps the IPCC's current prediction of 2C by 2050-- neither the prediction nor the "goalposts" have changed.

(The 1982 Exxon report had a slightly different timespan for doubling, stating that "We estimate doubling could occur around the year 2090 based upon fossil fuel requirements projected in Exxon's long range energy outlook". This report, however, is by a different author and dated 3 years later, so it's not unexpected that it would have a slightly different fossil fuel use model.)

The only reference to "five to ten years" in 1978 report is the statement on page 2 "Present thinking holds that man has a time window of five to ten years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical".

So it looks like scientists have been wrong about their global warming predictions going on four decades.

Except that their criteria for a 2-3 C increase hasn't passed yet. The IPCC apparently thinks the "first doubling of atmospheric CO2" will happen by about 2050. NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies thinks that global temps. have so far risen by 0.8 C since 1880. This means that the Exxon researcher's warning that "a doubling of CO2 levels in the atmosphere would increase average global temperatures by 2 to 3 degrees Celsius" could still come to pass. Several of the projections in the IPCC's figures suggest a 2C rise by ~2050 is possible, so they could still be proven right.

"Still might come to pass" in 2050 is far different than "5 to 10 years" from 1978. But keep moving the goal posts and you may eventually figure out a way to prove them right.

I can't find that purported prediction for "5 to 10 years" in either of the reports referenced. To the contrary, the reports very explicitly made no predictions for 5-10 years; it said that in that time period it would not be possible to distinguish the global warming signal from the statistical fluctuations. The only explicit numerical prediction in the 1978 Exxon report is on page 34 (the very last page, labeled "summary"). This stated "Doubling CO_2 could increase average global temperature by 1C to 3C by 2050 A.D. (10C predicted at poles)."

So I don't know what you mean about "moving the goalposts" on predictions. The goalpost in the 1978 prediction was "by 2050". This has not changed. The prediction in 1978 (based on the 1977 presentation) overlaps the IPCC's current prediction of 2C by 2050-- neither the prediction nor the "goalposts" have changed.

(The 1982 Exxon report had a slightly different timespan for doubling, stating that "We estimate doubling could occur around the year 2090 based upon fossil fuel requirements projected in Exxon's long range energy outlook". This report, however, is by a different author and dated 3 years later, so it's not unexpected that it would have a slightly different fossil fuel use model.)

The only reference to "five to ten years" in 1978 report is the statement on page 2 "Present thinking holds that man has a time window of five to ten years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical".

So it looks like scientists have been wrong about their global warming predictions going on four decades.

Except that their criteria for a 2-3 C increase hasn't passed yet. The IPCC apparently thinks the "first doubling of atmospheric CO2" will happen by about 2050. NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies thinks that global temps. have so far risen by 0.8 C since 1880. This means that the Exxon researcher's warning that "a doubling of CO2 levels in the atmosphere would increase average global temperatures by 2 to 3 degrees Celsius" could still come to pass. Several of the projections in the IPCC's figures suggest a 2C rise by ~2050 is possible, so they could still be proven right.

"Still might come to pass" in 2050 is far different than "5 to 10 years" from 1978. But keep moving the goal posts and you may eventually figure out a way to prove them right.

I can't find that purported prediction for "5 to 10 years" in either of the reports referenced. To the contrary, the reports very explicitly made no predictions for 5-10 years; it said that in that time period it would not be possible to distinguish the global warming signal from the statistical fluctuations. The only explicit numerical prediction in the 1978 Exxon report is on page 34 (the very last page, labeled "summary"). This stated "Doubling CO_2 could increase average global temperature by 1C to 3C by 2050 A.D. (10C predicted at poles)."

So I don't know what you mean about "moving the goalposts" on predictions. The goalpost in the 1978 prediction was "by 2050". This has not changed. The prediction in 1978 (based on the 1977 presentation) overlaps the IPCC's current prediction of 2C by 2050-- neither the prediction nor the "goalposts" have changed.

(The 1982 Exxon report had a slightly different timespan for doubling, stating that "We estimate doubling could occur around the year 2090 based upon fossil fuel requirements projected in Exxon's long range energy outlook". This report, however, is by a different author and dated 3 years later, so it's not unexpected that it would have a slightly different fossil fuel use model.)

The only reference to "five to ten years" in 1978 report is the statement on page 2 "Present thinking holds that man has a time window of five to ten years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical".

This article AND summary are perfect examples. They say Exxon this, Exxon that, but there are no names.

You obviously didn't read any further than the first few paragraphs if you think that they didn't name any names. It was littered with direct quotes and even linked documents. Here are the names that I have found (either in the article or the linked source documents):

• James F. Black
• Richard D. Keil
• Harold N. Weinberg
• Henry Shaw
• Edward E. David
• M B Glaser
• M J Connor Jr
• C M Eidt Jr
• W R Epperly
• R L Hirsch
• T G Kaufmann
• D G Levine
• G H Long
• J R Riley
• H R Savage
• A Schriesheim
• J F Taylor
• D T Wade
• H N Weinberg
• Roger Cohen
• Lee Raymond

There is also a link at the end to a summary of the cast of characters. To try and claim that this was some vague puff piece is itself an attempt to spread FUD about the article.

Instead of the biased article, read what the report actually concludes:

Overall, the current outlook suggests potentially serious climate problems are not likely to occur until the late 21st century or perhaps beyond at projected energy demand rates. This should provide time to resolve uncertainties regarding the overall carbon cycle and the contribution of fossil fuel combustion as well as the role of the oceans as a reservoir for both heat and carbon dioxide. [...] Making significant changes in energy consumption patterns now to deal with this potential problem amid all the scientific uncertainties would be premature in view of the severe impact such moves could have on the world's economies and societies.

http://insideclimatenews.org/s...

The report also points out that temperature increases would not be uniform, with strong increase at the polar caps and little increase near the equator.

The interesting thing is that little has changed about these conclusions in the last 30 years; science has produced a lot of new data, but the conclusions have changed little.

38 years.

And things have changed, the later 21st century is 38 years closer, the uncertainties a lot smaller, and alternative sources of energy a lot more mature.

But it is somewhat surprising how close the projections were at that time.

The bods in white coats said: burning oil (etc) may be bad news and furthermore it may be bad if you don't change your business strategy in the light of that soon.

No, that's not what they said (even if the article leads you to believe otherwise). Read the actual report that the article is based on. What the scientists actually said was that action on climate change was "premature" because of the "large scientific uncertainties" and the "severe impact of climate change policies on the world's economies".

http://insideclimatenews.org/s...

So, Exxon followed the advice of its scientists.

(In addition, little has changed in the intervening 30 years, so the conclusions are arguably still valid.)

Instead of the biased article, read what the report actually concludes:

Overall, the current outlook suggests potentially serious climate problems are not likely to occur until the late 21st century or perhaps beyond at projected energy demand rates. This should provide time to resolve uncertainties regarding the overall carbon cycle and the contribution of fossil fuel combustion as well as the role of the oceans as a reservoir for both heat and carbon dioxide. [...] Making significant changes in energy consumption patterns now to deal with this potential problem amid all the scientific uncertainties would be premature in view of the severe impact such moves could have on the world's economies and societies.

http://insideclimatenews.org/s...

The report also points out that temperature increases would not be uniform, with strong increase at the polar caps and little increase near the equator.

The interesting thing is that little has changed about these conclusions in the last 30 years; science has produced a lot of new data, but the conclusions have changed little.

So it looks like scientists have been wrong about their global warming predictions going on four decades. Or did I miss the great, impactful Exxon global warming crash of 1988?

I'm not sure what prediction you're saying is wrong. The Exxon 1982 report) being discussed said:

"If the earth is on a warming trend, we're not likely to detect it before 1995. This is about the earliest projection of when the temperature might rise the 0.5 needed to get beyond the range of normal temperature fluctuations."

Since they said the signal doesn't exceed the noise until 1995, they didn't even make a prediction for 1988.

The report did have a statement that the greenhouse effect would produce 1C warming "above present levels" by "the second to third quarter of the next century" (page 2 of the pdf.)

Here's the graph of actual measured data:
data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A.gif

Fitting a line through that data starting with "present levels" of 1980, I see a rise of about 0.8 between 1980 and 2014. So looks like their prediction was very close to the data.

If anytjhing, their prediction was slightly low, but since in the same report they list an uncertainty of over 50% on model predictions, their prediction matches the measured data to well within their quoted error bars.

Inside the article are links to the scans of the actual reports done by Exxon.

* 1977 report, from James Black: http://insideclimatenews.org/s...
* 1982 report from M. B. Glaser: http://insideclimatenews.org/s...

They did state that there is no unambiguous evidence yet (as of 1982), but the 1982 report said: "If the earth is on a warming trend, we're not likely to detect it before 1995. This is about the earliest projection of when the temperature might rise the 0.5 needed to get beyond the range of normal temperature fluctuations."

Inside the article are links to the scans of the actual reports done by Exxon.

* 1977 report, from James Black: http://insideclimatenews.org/s...
* 1982 report from M. B. Glaser: http://insideclimatenews.org/s...

They did state that there is no unambiguous evidence yet (as of 1982), but the 1982 report said: "If the earth is on a warming trend, we're not likely to detect it before 1995. This is about the earliest projection of when the temperature might rise the 0.5 needed to get beyond the range of normal temperature fluctuations."

http://insideclimatenews.org/n...

not made up, not a scourge, but not made up.

you always gotta remember, corporations are by design amoral. and they'll be greedy as fuck.

we need government to reign in their excesses, and you should expect as many excesses as they can get away with. but that's just the nature of the beast.

Amen to that.

If we are gonna claim to be serious about cutting emissions, France has already proven the technology to do so has already existed for a long time.

Too bad it fails when it gets too hot - http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2006/jul/30/energy.weather, http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20120815/nuclear-power-plants-energy-nrc-drought-weather-heat-water. Kinda sucks when you are dealing with Global Warming.

Here is the transcript of President Obama's speech on climate at the UN: http://insideclimatenews.org/b... I think this is the anchor paragraph:

"So today, I call on all major economies to do the same [declare emissions targets and implementation policies]. For I believe, in the words of Dr. King, that there is such a thing as being too late. And for the sake of future generations, our generation must move toward a global compact to confront a changing climate while we still can."

Threatening China with Dr. King may be even more potent than moving to impose carbon tariffs on their imports. http://news.slashdot.org/story... The legitimacy of China's government is threatened by Dr. King's philosophy.

Taxpayers in the red - that means losses

Since its creation it's lost $800 million

Energy Department projects $2.9 billion in losses

I can provide many more if you like - because the program hasn't made a dime. It's lost billions (and it was planned to lose even more billions, but the program's not done yet - there's still time to lose more. Dywolf's link showed nothing about a gain. It said losses were less than expected - but still losses. I can't find anything that says the program is making money - it's all losses. And if you want to dig further, read the White House's independent review of the program where it states we're on the hook for 30 years, we have inexperienced people managing it, poor oversight, no planning, no accountability, and no goals.

You're blaming railroads for a lot of things they have no control over:

• Railroads don't classify the goods being shipped, shippers do.
• Railroads can't refuse to take dangerous goods. They're classified as common carries and have to carry anything that's allowed by regulation, including hazardous materials.
• Railroads do own older, less safe equipment, such as older DOT-111 tank cars and can reasonably be blamed for spotting the cars they own to industries shipping volatile chemicals. However, they cannot refuse to move cars delivered from other railroads, or leased by the industries. Furthermore, the factories making replacement vehicles are backed up for two years. Even so, railroads are replacing the cars they own. They are being responsible.
• Most rail lines were built in rural areas, and the cities grew up around them. Don't blame the railroad when a city builds up next to a transportation corridor that transports dangerous goods. In the cases where railroads have rebuilt outside of cities, the cities have again crowded around the lines. What do you expect railroads to do? They were there first.

The solution is to put hydrocarbons (and other dangerous liquid goods) in pipelines that are statistically far safer. Pipelines, carrying one a single product, can be routed far away from urban areas. But those in power refuse to allow it, in cases stalling for over half a decade.

Or blame the shippers, who purposely make their shipments more volatile and mislabel the contents.

Railroads can be blamed for runaway trains, like the one that got away in Lac-Megantic (a train that had safely passed through Toronto earlier). Derailments happen, despite the best efforts to prevent them (they cost a lot of money, so no railroad wants them). But most of the blame for the explosive situations that have resulted cannot be placed on the railroads: their hands are tied.

Scientists won't never tell the government what to do. It's not their task.

I don't know if you're an idiot or ignorant, but counter-examples abound.

For those who don't like to click shortened links, here are the real ones:

http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1cswmm/enormous_methane_releases_from_the_arctic_shelf/
http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1b6roo/the_most_influential_climate_science_paper_today/

The first one is directly responsive to the previous post (about northern permafrost areas becoming arable land). It argues that there are massive reserves of methane that may enter the atmosphere if the permafrost melts. This is important because methane is more of a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. The actual article is at http://enggpt.blogspot.com/2013/04/enormous-methane-releases-from-arctic.html

The second one is one of the uncontrollable warming arguments. For some reason (unexplained in the article at http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20140213/climate-change-science-carbon-budget-nature-global-warming-2-degrees-bill-mckibben-fossil-fuels-keystone-xl-oil ), if we run over a certain level of carbon dioxide in the air, the Earth will turn into Venus. This is despite the fact that the Earth used to have much more carbon dioxide in the air than it does now.

It's worth noting that the uncontrollable warming folks are the left's equivalent of the right wingers who argue that there is no global warming. It's easy enough to find older papers saying that the tip off point was a time that was in the future then but is now in the past. There are plenty of bad effects that can occur without uncontrollable warming. Especially for people who live close to sea level. Matching the right's hyperbole with bigger hyperbole makes the right look more sane as a result.